MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4283391754 · doi:10.3390/jrfm15070273

Does Volume of Gold Consumption Influence the World Gold Price?

2022· article· en· W4283391754 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Maria Immanuvel S, Daniel Lazar

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMarket Dynamics and Volatility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBullionCommodityEconomicsGold as an investmentChinaConsumption (sociology)Commodity marketPrecious metalCommerceAgricultural economicsInternational economicsMonetary economicsBusinessMarket economyGeographyFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gold is a universal commodity traded across the world. The London Bullion Market Association (LBMA) fixes prices twice a day, known as AM and PM fix prices. This study is an attempt to find out whether the volume of gold consumption shows any significant impact on the world gold prices, known as LBMA fix prices. The sample includes major gold-consuming countries, such as India, the USA, China, Japan, and countries in Europe and the Middle East grouped together under Europe and the Middle East, respectively. The results conclude that there exists a long-run relationship between LBMA fix prices and the gold demand of all the countries. Furthermore, the volume of gold demand significantly influences LBMA AM fix and PM fix prices. It is found out that the demand of all the countries together, and India and China individually, affect the world gold prices significantly. India consistently stands as the largest consumer of gold in the world gold market. In spite of this, India is a price taker. Bullion associations and commodity exchanges that allow bullion trade in India may take initiatives to make India a price maker in the world gold markets.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.192 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial management→Same topicMarket Dynamics and Volatility→French-language works237,207→